I'd suggest using backfire when it comes to: allowing men to have feelings other than anger, happiness and sexual feelings, allowing men to be pretty, allowing men to be nursery school teachers and nurses, allowing men to not be up for sex 100% of the time and also treating men as idiots (see: Grown Ups, Cleaning adverts where the man doesn't know how to clean toilet and woman has to step in)

It's not just nursery school, it's elementary (k-5). I remember that by middle school (6-8) the number of male teachers I had shot up dramatically. Also the fact that not all men are auto mechanics, home repair experts, landscapers, sports fanatics, and/or hunting experts. Also, just because I say hi and act friendly to random women at work does not mean I'm trying to fuck them (there's like hundreds of people in the company (a ski resort), I say 'hi' to everyone whenever I pass by them). It also means that it's OK if mom is the bread winner or dad stays at home with the kids._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Last edited by Darqcyde on Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total

There is the notion that men are naturally filthy unreasonable creatures who don't know how to behave and are really just a burden on the adults (Red: Women) whom they've endeared themselvesto in much the same way a dog at the humane society will convince someone to adopt it by behaving in adorable ways. (This is not the only view, but is one I see in comedy shows and other places.)

Who would want to be such a person? What does it do to someone's psyche if they hear all the time, "This is what you are" and everyone they care about laughs and confirms it?_________________::crisis mode::

It's dismissive because, um, large chunks of the patriarchy include/involve *actively oppressing* people that do not fit into the standard gender binary or sexuality? Just because they have the ability to be misyogynistic doesn't mean they *aren't being oppressed* by the patriarchy. I would like to point to recent events in, oh, say, Russia, as an example.

To call that 'backfiring' instead of 'oppression' seems to be slightly insulting, condescending, and quite frankly dismissive to the people being jailed, etc for being gay. Or the folks in the US who have been murdered because they're gay.

(Note: I am a cisgendered, heterosexual male. So this isn't, and can't, be about 'me me me', since I'm kind of focusing on men that, well, are not, by definition, me.)

If you're going to argue that anyone who has the 'ability' to profit from the patriarchy can't actually be oppressed by it, I'm... not.. really sure how to respond to that. Sure. They can 'benefit' from the patriarchy if they completely hide who they are, chose not to rock the boat, and retreat completely into, say, self-loathing.

That seems like a pretty shitty 'benefit'.

But I guess people who choose not to do that and get jailed or fired for being gay aren't actually being oppressed, they're just being 'backfired' on.

Sorry for not responding earlier, my internet was being wonky.

I see what you mean, but I'm still not sure why the term 'backfiring' would be considered insulting. To clarify, I don't mean it on a personal scale, but on the scale of society. If I understood correctly, you are basically saying that if the men are suffering for not fitting the specific mold of man the patriarchy is designed to offer benefits to, then it qualifies as oppression and using the term 'backfiring' isn't suitable.

The reason I disagree with this is because the specific mold of man being lauded by the patriarchy is not a given constant. Though some things have stayed consistent, the patriarchy's idea of the perfect worthy man has shifted through the ages in accordance to other trends, and the image of masculinity was different if we compare, say, the modern Western world, Renaissance through Victorian-era Europe, and Ancient Rome as well as Ancient Greece (particularly interesting because their society often endorsed what we could call hypermasculinity while also having a very different attitude towards (male) homosexual behaviour than we generally do). Despite the shifting image of desirable masculinity, these societies without a doubt tended to be very patriarchal where treatment of women was concerned.

What I'm saying is this: The patriarchy is designed to oppress women regardless of whether they follow the contradictory roles assigned to them or not, and to reliably benefit men who do follow the rules. As such, the system oppresses women while backfiring on some of the men it should, ideally, benefit. I also agree that the behaviour towards those men who do not follow these "rules" definitely qualifies as oppressive.

But the difference is in the presence of a winning condition for men in this imaginary contract, and the utter absence of it for women - a woman has the choice between being submissive to a man in her decision-making and having her rights and her own desires trodden over in the process, or defying the pressure to be submissive and suffering the at best social shunning, at worst violent and potentially lethal backlash from it. As you put it, men can benefit from the patriarchy if they hide completely who they are and choose not to rock the boat et cetera. Yes, it may be a pretty shitty benefit, but it is still a benefit and a freedom women fundamentally do not have.

For that reason, I feel that statements like 'but the patriarchy oppresses men sometimes too!' risks drawing a false equivalent and ignoring the fundamental differences in the way the patriarchy treats members of one side of its imposed gender binary versus the other.

Beep: A disproportionate number of Beeps end up not being said.
Whoosh: Why are you talking about Beeps? We are all onomatopaeia, and we should be concerned about all onomatopoeia's rates of utterance.
Beep: But when we do that, Whoosh's take over the floor, and every other sound us drowned out.
Whoosh: Well, clearly that's your own fault because in my experience, any Whoosh which works hard can get uttered.
Beep: That could have something to do with a ton of stories being made that include disproportionate Whoosh's and provide no opportunity for Beeps.
Whoosh: You're saying that's my fault.
Beep: Really? Because I'm pretty sure I said a disproportionate number of beeps end up not being said. Whoosh's are said more often. How is stating these facts blaming you?
Whoosh: Because you're saying Whoosh's get things they haven't earned because they're taking them from Beeps!
Beep: Do you choose which stories are written?
Whoosh: No.
Beep: Then you personally aren't to blame for Beeps not being said, because you didn't set the parameters.

Whoosh: So why are you telling me this if it isn't my fault and I can't press a magic button to fix it?
Beep: Because of the position you occupy, you are unaware of the many effects not being uttered has on onomatopoeia. My saying that Beeps are disproportionately denied utterance is a starting point for sharing the rest and then fixing the problems.
Whoosh: So I'm not supposed to say anything, and I have to pretend Whoosh's have no problems? You are vile.
Beep: You can talk, but since the experience of Whoosh's is well knwn to everyone and the experience of Beeps is not, Beeps need some time and a platform to share their experience before we Onomatopoeia can move forward.

Bippity-Boop: I hope you're both planning on including a place for Bippity-Boops on ths platform.
Interrobang: And don't forget punctuation.

Beep: Ummm...We can work on your problems later. Once the Beeps have moved up

Interrobang: What?!
Bippity-Boop: Oh... Huh. Well, gee, thanks for letting me make this Beeps Representation poster and waving it at a million rallies.

Beep: No problem.

Whoosh: Now, see, this is proof that you all are craven liars, because you won't help each other. So if you'll excuse my, I've got to assist a superhero flying to aid a poor defenseless victim.

(No serious posts ever, my ass!)

Hey, I forgot to ask, is this original, and if so canI repost it elsewhere and what attribution should I use if I do? feel free to pm me._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

No you just have the fewest possible stumbling blocks to success and most of the western world is aimed at your sensibilities and desires.

Now if you use the above fact to become a bitter asshole about people who don't fit that mold trying to make more of the world accomidate their sensibilities and desires...then you are kind of a terrible person._________________